Sorry, they are not experts. They use the same irrational arguments that you do (mainly the argument from ignorance fallacy) and they have nothing more. If you disagree then please provide the actual evidence and argument here, instead of trying to pawn off your job onto someone else (or some other alleged "expert"). We can do that in science (provide the studies and argument). Do you have the guts to try it here?

First of, they are experts. Since you are not working in the field you cannot "remove" their title of expert. It doesn't mean you can't try and prove that they don't know anything about what they are talking and that you have proof of that. However I don't think this thread is the place for that. So yes I have the guts.

You merely CLAIMING they are experts doesn't mean anything. I could say that I'm an "expert" in anything (such as in "Unicornology"). It means nothing unless such a title can actually be demonstrated as representing something real or actual. And since you are the one claiming they are experts, in a subject you have not demonstrated as real, the burden of proof is on you to actually demonstrate that the alleged subject for which these people are supposed to be experts in is actually real (i.e. - God). And it is that which you have not done. You have attempting to use a circular argument.

-"I know astrology is true b/c I consulted the experts"-Have you demonstrated that Astrology is actually true and/or real? -"Uh, I don't need to. The experts told me."-And what makes you think these people are real/true "experts" in Astrology? -"Cause they said so..."

See, the difference here is that scientific confirmations can be independently verified (even by those who don't share such opinions or have knowledge of the subject). You simply DO NOT have this with your alleged "miracles".

That is your opinion.

NOPE. It's a fact. Otherwise you would have presented the evidence already. You don't have jack shit and that is the issue.

What you have is a group of people who basically state that because science does not have a current explanation of how a person got better, that therefore it must have been a "God" that did it. But that is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy! I don't care how many times you try to use it. It is logically fallacious...every-single-time.

That might be because you misunderstand the process. Did you ask yourself that question? Do you understand how miracle are found? Are you sure you have the correct information? Was your source reliable?

I understand how miracles are CLAIMED to be found and that is exactly the problem. It is an argument from ignorance fallacy (and one of my sources was Jacalyn Duffin; the one you gave!). If you disagree then actually present the evidence and rational argument.

Yes, I am willing to admit ignorance. Doesn't mean that I cannot point you in the direction of someone who has the answer you seek.

We are having a discussion here with you, not Jacalyn Duffin and not anyone else of your alleged "experts". You are making claims and we are asking to you actually back them up with the evidence/rational argument that is used by your alleged expert. Why not stop your stone-walling and actually present the arguments.

Second, if you are willing to admit ignorance on these alleged miracles then that would make you an agnostic about them (meaning that you don't know what the cause was). Is that what you are admitting now?

Nowhere in the described methods are the use of control groups mentioned or effort to be accurate within a margin of error described. The only goal appears to be to ask a number of medical scientists if they have any explanation for the cure, if they don’t, then the committees and Pope can decide if it is a miracle which is text book “God of the gaps” logical fallacy.

So even though these Catholic Church friendly articles don’t mention any methods which follow the scientific method, that does not prove that “there are no control groups” or “specific criteria”.

Actually, I just did your job Lukvance in searching for the methods used by the Catholic Church to determine if a miracle has occurred. Unfortunately for you, there was no evidence to support your claims.

Lukvance, do you know what a peer-reviewed scientific study is? In case you don't, here is an example of a peer-reviewed scientific study published just last month. It deals with an earth science topic I know a bit about, agriculture.

The researchers were looking at how an invasive grass effects native plants. They used control groups (32 areas that were not invaded by the grass) and compared them with 32 invaded areas. They counted the plant species in each area, used statistical analysis and found that the invaded areas had higher levels of extinction, with 83% fewer species than the non-invaded areas. Finally, the study was reviewed by other people not associated with the research to make sure that the proper research protocols were followed.[1]

This quote from their summary gives their hypothesis as to how invasive plants choke out native species: "Invasion caused a twofold increase in litter biomass, which we hypothesize is the primary mechanism by which the invader excludes native species."

Further research will be able to build on what these folks have done. For example, I might want to see if invaded areas that had even higher levels of litter biomass were associated with higher rates of extinction in the native plant populations. I would have to design my study to use control groups and statistical measures for validity.

You said that you knew a lot about science. Demonstrate it, please. Give us a link to the scientific peer reviewed studies, using control groups and statistical testing that document the existence of miracles, Lukvance. I promise to read through their summaries and conclusions, and if they are valid, I will happily admit that I was wrong.

BTW, It took me less than five minutes to locate this scientific peer reviewed study on invasive grasses. But I can wait even longer while you look for an actual scientific peer reviewed study that shows miracles are real. So far, you have only presented collections of religious anecdotes, assertions of miracles by people who admit they don't know what they are examining, and websites with no more scientific authority than WWGHA....

If the researchers had said, "We only looked at areas that the god we believe in allowed to be invaded by outside species" or "We limited our analysis to places that had been properly blessed by the god we believe in" that would have told the peer reviewers that they were not dealing with science, but something else entirely. Religion, art or poetry. Not science.

I don't see or I can't find any major difference. I guess a flat earth expert deals with outdated falsified hypotheses where as a miracle expert makes claims that can't be falsified. Other than that, they are the same to me, experts in fiction (in the case of Star Trek experts) or mistaken beliefs (flat earth experts).What reason do I have to believe miracles are not fiction or mistaken beliefs?

Many. One of them is that you can see, touch and listen to some people that has lived a miracle. You also have access to all the work that has been done around each miracle through books and people that have worked on the case. Given enough time and money, you will be able to find a miracle yourself. Your non belief in miracle do not undo them. People that were sick are still cured even if you don't believe in miracle. Even if every one on earth did not "believe" in miracle, the person would still have been cured by God, there would still be a miracle.

What reason do I have to believe miracles are not fiction or mistaken beliefs?

Many. One of them is that you can see, touch and listen to some people that has lived a miracle. You also have access to all the work that has been done around each miracle through books and people that have worked on the case.

I can see, touch and listen to people who have watched Star Trek, does that mean Star Trek is real? I have access to all of the work that has been done around each flat Earth theory through books and people who study the theories, does that mean the Earth is flat?

Given enough time and money, you will be able to find a miracle yourself. Your non belief in miracle do not undo them. People that were sick are still cured even if you don't believe in miracle. Even if every one on earth did not "believe" in miracle, the person would still have been cured by God, there would still be a miracle.

I don’t deny that the people have been healed, that much has been scientifically proven. From your sources and others that I have provided, the methods used to determine the involvement of “God” involve merely determining that no known natural cause was a result of the healing. This is the text book “God of the Gaps” argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Just because we don’t know the cause of the healing is not proof that the Catholic Church “God” is responsible. No methods are provided in making that determination, which has been explained to you many times.

Why should I believe a logical fallacy? Logical fallacies lead to errors and mistakes which can lead to believing falsehoods are true.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

You merely CLAIMING they are experts doesn't mean anything. I could say that I'm an "expert" in anything

Where am I claiming such things? I explained to you that experts are deemed such by their peers. My field is not miracle, It is computers.When I point you towards miracle expert because I don't have enough knowledge to answer your burning question. I am not making a statement. I am just helping you find solutions to your troubles.

Did you ask yourself that question? Do you understand how miracle are found? Are you sure you have the correct information? Was your source reliable?

I understand how miracles are CLAIMED to be found and that is exactly the problem. It is an argument from ignorance fallacy (and one of my sources was Jacalyn Duffin; the one you gave!). If you disagree then actually present the evidence and rational argument.

That is answering one of my questions. What about the others? "Are you sure you have the correct information? Was your source reliable?"

Quote

You are making claims and we are asking to you actually back them up with the evidence/rational argument that is used by your alleged expert. Why not stop your stone-walling and actually present the arguments.

I don't understand. You realize that I am not a miracle expert, right? And neither are you, right? They have answers to your questions that I don't have. That's why I directed you towards them. What claim do you want to back that has not already be backed?Let's play a game. You tell me the claim you understand I made, you tell me what I should have given to back it up, you compare it with whatever backing I actually did. Then tell us if there is something missing. Well you don't even have to tell us it should be obvious what backing is missing from the one you where looking forward to.

Quote

Second, if you are willing to admit ignorance on these alleged miracles then that would make you an agnostic about them (meaning that you don't know what the cause was). Is that what you are admitting now?

Ignorance and not being an expert are 2 different things. I am not ignorant when it comes to matters of religion/miracles.

I will wait for you to educate yourself on the subject of miracle to the point that you can claim "There are no control groups" and "there is no specific criteria" from somewhere else than out of you a** Until then.

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

BTW, It took me less than five minutes to locate this scientific peer reviewed study on invasive grasses. But I can wait even longer while you look for an actual scientific peer reviewed study that shows miracles are real. So far, you have only presented collections of religious anecdotes, assertions of miracles by people who admit they don't know what they are examining, and websites with no more scientific authority than WWGHA....

Do you even know what you are looking for?

Quote

scientific peer reviewed studies, using control groups and statistical testing that document the existence of miracles

What is that? A dictionary? What are you looking for? Do you have the slightest idea of what the result would be? I don't think you learned enough about miracle to support your claim. (which was : "There are no control groups" and "there is no specific criteria")

Hey, has the word "miracle" been defined to anyone's satisfaction in this thread, or is everyone operation off of their own assumptions.

I'm almost 63. I've never seen a miracle in my entire life. I've seen good coincidences and bad coincidences, I've seen people have good days and bad days, but I've never seen anything that qualifies as a miracle.

I didn't get hit by an asteroid today (at least not yet). Is that a miracle, or the norm? If an asteroid hit the planet and landed just far enough away from me not to harm me, would that be a miracle or just a relatively pleasant set of happenstances. If said asteroid struck just far enough away from me to cause me no harm but killed 50,000 others, would my survival qualify as a miracle? Or would it merely be an inefficient asteroid?

I've known very religious people who needed miracles bad, but didn't get them. Instead they got dead kids, dead spouses, burned homes, lost savings, etc. I, an almost lifelong atheist, have never lost a spouse or a child or had my house burn or lost all of my savings or otherwise had a tragic time on this planet. How come? If miracles aren't available to we atheists, why haven't I died of lung cancer at 42, or had my son die of a bee sting, or my house burn in a brush fire? How come I haven't needed a miracle to restore the use of my limbs or cure my cancer or save me from alzheimers? I mean, what good are miracles if you don't need them, and what good are miracles if the people who expect them more than me, the religious folks, don't get them when they need them? If miracles are so arbitrary that the start looking like things that happened that were a little unusual considering the circumstances, but little else, why get so excited about them?

So if anyone has defined "miracle" to everyone's satisfaction here, I'd like to know what that definition is.

Otherwise, it is merely the easily impressed arguing with realists. That won't go anywhere.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

I can see, touch and listen to people who have watched Star Trek, does that mean Star Trek is real?

No. In my example I am not talking about someone who saw a miracle on TV. Why do you compare it with people who saw something on TV?If you could touch, see, and listen to a Vulcan or at least people who have been into the Enterprise or Klingon space, that would be different. Wouldn't it?

Quote

I have access to all of the work that has been done around each flat Earth theory through books and people who study the theories, does that mean the Earth is flat?

No. In my example I am talking about a repetitive event why do you compare it with something that is not repetitive? That is not even an event?

Quote

I don’t deny that the people have been healed, that much has been scientifically proven. From your sources and others that I have provided, the methods used to determine the involvement of “God” involve merely determining that no known natural cause was a result of the healing. This is the text book “God of the Gaps” argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Just because we don’t know the cause of the healing is not proof that the Catholic Church “God” is responsible. No methods are provided in making that determination, which has been explained to you many times.Why should I believe a logical fallacy? Logical fallacies lead to errors and mistakes which can lead to believing falsehoods are true.

You keep repeating that it is a logical fallacy without telling us what would make it not a fallacy. I mean, if God were to exist and to act upon this world, how differently would you proceed to detect his actions?Let me answer for you, you will do exactly what is being done right now.Look for reasons that it is not God. Once all options has been eliminated, look for reasons why it is God, then conclude.

Hey, has the word "miracle" been defined to anyone's satisfaction in this thread, or is everyone operation off of their own assumptions.

I'm almost 63. I've never seen a miracle in my entire life. I've seen good coincidences and bad coincidences, I've seen people have good days and bad days, but I've never seen anything that qualifies as a miracle.

I didn't get hit by an asteroid today (at least not yet). Is that a miracle, or the norm? If an asteroid hit the planet and landed just far enough away from me not to harm me, would that be a miracle or just a relatively pleasant set of happenstances. If said asteroid struck just far enough away from me to cause me no harm but killed 50,000 others, would my survival qualify as a miracle? Or would it merely be an inefficient asteroid?

I've known very religious people who needed miracles bad, but didn't get them. Instead they got dead kids, dead spouses, burned homes, lost savings, etc. I, an almost lifelong atheist, have never lost a spouse or a child or had my house burn or lost all of my savings or otherwise had a tragic time on this planet. How come? If miracles aren't available to we atheists, why haven't I died of lung cancer at 42, or had my son die of a bee sting, or my house burn in a brush fire? How come I haven't needed a miracle to restore the use of my limbs or cure my cancer or save me from alzheimers? I mean, what good are miracles if you don't need them, and what good are miracles if the people who expect them more than me, the religious folks, don't get them when they need them? If miracles are so arbitrary that the start looking like things that happened that were a little unusual considering the circumstances, but little else, why get so excited about them?

So if anyone has defined "miracle" to everyone's satisfaction here, I'd like to know what that definition is.

Otherwise, it is merely the easily impressed arguing with realists. That won't go anywhere.

Welcome to the discussion.Miracles are used by me in this discussion as a proof of God's existence outside our body. "Miracle" is short for "miracles that has been recognize by the Vatican". You not being hit or your house not burning are not miracles. People praying and having their prayers answered are not miracle if it wasn't submitted to then accepted by the Vatican.I hope this clarify things for you.Miracles in general are "event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency"

And other deities who have healed followers with their god squads verifying them as miracles,do they lie? For every deity out there there is a person or group that has verified the healing power if their chosen deity. Stop claiming things that have been done before by better deitys than your own

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Welcome to the discussion.Miracles are used by me in this discussion as a proof of God's existence outside our body. "Miracle" is short for "miracles that has been recognize by the Vatican". You not being hit or your house not burning are not miracles. People praying and having their prayers answered are not miracle if it wasn't submitted to then accepted by the Vatican.I hope this clarify things for you.Miracles in general are "event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency"

Thanks for the answer. That of course explains why I haven't seen any. At least the discussion isn't a generic one, but a catholic one. That way we don't have to discuss the "Miracle Mets" of 1969. That simplifies things.

However, it sure seems burdensome to have to depend on a committee or whatever you catholics rely on to decide if something was a miracle. I mean, if the process used to determine if a miracle actually happened is so complex that some unexplained outcomes don't get labeled as miracles (after careful consideration) then even your miracles don't explain all the inexplicable stuff you guys see and/or expect.

Do catholics, when praying for a miracle, toss in the caveat that they hope it also clears committee, or do they leave the paperwork to the bureaucracy and just wing it?

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

You are thinking too superficially. My analogy was on a higher level of thought than you understand it.

Interesting how when someone calls you to provide evidence based on an analogy you used, suddenly they're "thinking too superficially" because your analogy "was on a higher level of thought than (they) understood it". Sorry, but I'm not buying it, especially I've seen arguments very much like this before which amounted to "I don't have evidence so I'm going to express this experience as so much deeper and more profound than physical reality that nobody will be able to argue against it". The problem is, that argument only works when you're dealing with someone credulous enough to believe you without evidence. I am nowhere near that credulous.

Quote from: Lukvance

You will only know that you talked to someone on the phone when you meet that person in flesh. until then all the "proof" that you can give can be faked. (you talked to a beep not actually to someone on the other side) The same goes for my experience with God. I know he touched me but I will only be 100% sure when I will meet him.

In short, you don't actually know if this whole miracle experience of yours ever existed outside your own mind, and you have no evidence you can use to demonstrate that it did either. All you have is your belief. I'll give you credit for admitting as much, even if you are far more certain of it than is warranted.

Quote from: Lukvance

I did construct one that passed muster. You wanted to quit before I had time to explain it in simpler terms to you.

No, trust me, you didn't even come close. I have experience with using the scientific method, and I could thus tell that your attempt was a superficial attempt to follow the form without understanding the function well enough to make it work. It was about the equivalent of you making a paper mache building and then claiming to understand the principles of how buildings are made well enough to make meaningful comparisons. Beyond a certain point, it isn't worth trying to convince someone who's that unreasonably certain about knowing something, and that's why I got tired of trying to discuss it with you. It just isn't worth it when you not only don't get it, but you keep insisting that you do even though your own words and examples demonstrate that you don't to anyone who has a reasonable understanding of the subject.

Quote from: Lukvance

Your sentences are not true. I know about both, miracles and Higgs Boson. That is why I compared them to one another.

I highly doubt that, as so far you have completely failed to demonstrate that you know anything meaningful about the Higgs boson. So why don't you tell me, in your own words, without looking it up, just what the Higgs boson is?

Quote from: Lukvance

You need to stop judging me and prove your points without posing judgement. Let people make their own conclusion.

If I know a subject (like the scientific method) reasonably well, and I can tell that you don't, then I am for sure going to call you on your lack of knowledge and keep calling you on it. If you consider that 'judgmental', then so be it. Either demonstrate that you really understand it or stop pretending that you do.

Quote from: Lukvance

That's hurtful.

I've tried to get through to you while being gentle, and it hasn't worked. So now I have to be more forceful to get through your know-it-all armor.

Quote from: Lukvance

I'm what we call a go-to guy when it comes to computers and programs. We have a product that allow videoconferencing on the web.

Is it a miracle that so many known repeat/serial child rapists in the catholic church evaded criminal charges or can that be explained by the known laws of thermodynamics or sumthin??

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Videoconferencing. - now luk said anyone can perform a miracle set up a videoconference and demonstrate. better yet skip the ttechnology of man and miracle a videoconference in the sky so the whole world sees the same thing at the same time.... that would convince many.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2014, 08:18:30 PM by eh! »

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Lukvance, I do not claim to be an expert on miracles. I do not even know what that would entail, and you don't either. I would love to read a real study on miracles so I can learn more about them. Reading anecdotes about what people think are miracles are not going to tell me much, other than that some people think there are miracles. And those people do not seem to know much about research, statistics, and how to design a valid scientific study

But I do know something about research, statistics, and how to design a valid scientific study. If you can answer the following, I might be able to explain what I am looking for in a peer-reviewed, statistically valid scientific study with control groups that demonstrates that miracles exist.

1) How will a miracle be defined? This is important, and cannot be glossed over. You can't say, before you start the study: "If scientists can't figure out what caused a healing, and we pray about it, we will assume that it was done by our preferred god and that will be called a miracle."

You have to say, in very specific terms, what constitutes a miracle, and what does not constitute a miracle. An example would be: "In order for something to be called a miracle, it would have to meet all of these 5 exclusive criteria: a, b, c, d, and e." If something meets a, c, and d but not b and e, it is not a miracle in our study.

And it would not be scientific to eliminate something that meets all 5 criteria-- except that a different deity, or an alien was involved. We are trying to learn about the universe here. If there are aliens or other gods doing healings, we want to know. If someone wants to only count a particular god's miracles as real miracles, that is fine. But is not science.

2) What kind of a control group would be used in a study on miracles and why? Religious sick people? Non religious sick people? Sick Catholics? Sick non-Catholics? How would they be selected? Would it be a random sample? If not, why not? How would bias be avoided in the control group? The control group cannot know that they are the control group. The researchers cannot know that they are the control group either.

3) Who would the experimental or test group be and why? Religious sick people? Non religious sick people? Sick Catholics? Sick non-Catholics? How would they be selected? Would it be a random sample? If not, why not? How would bias be avoided in the test group? The test group cannot know that they are the test group. The researchers cannot know that they are the test group either.

4) Who would do the prayers other religious interventions and why? Priests? Regular people? Religious people? Non religious people? Catholics only? Non-Catholics only?How would the number, intensity, sincerity of prayers or other religious interventions be measured?

5) What level of statistical validity would be needed to say yes, a miracle or no, not a miracle? You have to select your confidence level ahead of time, to avoid biasing your results. That is, you have to say for example, we will accept a 15% or 20% or 30% or healing rate among the test group as valid evidence of a miracle due to prayer. If the results show only a 5% healing rate after you have specified 25%, you cannot go back and say you have proved a miracle. That is making the results say whatever you want, instead of being scientific.

6) Who would independently analyze the before and after results (x-rays, blood samples, etc.)? Preferably, you have some nerdy science types with no interest in miracles one way or the other do the analysis of the results. Then you are more likely to get clean, unbiased analysis.

7) Who would do the peer review of the study? Remember, it cannot be anyone connected to the research. Preferably, you have some nerdy statistical types with no interest in miracles one way or the other do the peer review.

Are there any studies that follow the basic kind of investigative protocol listed above? The links you have given and the procedures you have described do not show anything like what is required of a peer-reviewed, statistically valid scientific study with control groups. I am still waiting for that.

In fact, Lukvance, the process where you have described what the Vatican does at Lourdes would not qualify as scientific in our local middle school science fair. I am serious-- I have judged the science fair, and the kids who showed which brand of cereal had more raisins did a better job of following research protocols and sticking to the scientific method than what the Vatican apparently does to certify miracles.

Oh its like the higgs particle you only count the things that are higgs particles. you don't count the not higgs particles do you and when you count the higgs particles from the way you defined them ie when i find a higgs particle and say its a higgs particle then i did a scientific study to find the higgs particle. in exactly the same way i use the scientific method to find a miracle and by definition when i say it is one it proves it is one.... if this answer is not good enough for you give me an answer that is and then that's my new answer.

how many times you people gotta be told.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

^^^^Makes perfect sense to me now. Lukvance just needs to stop using capital letters and then we will understand.

I wish he would try using an example from a field of science he actually understands. Or at least use medical examples that are somewhat related to healing. Or maybe, hey! Refer us to some peer-reviewed studies that use control groups, statistical tests and maybe random sampling? You know, some actual science?

luk wants to try reinforce his belief by invoking the credibility of science.

it is a looooooong leap tho, he thinks enough words will bridge the gap.

Logged

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

I don't see or I can't find any major difference. I guess a flat earth expert deals with outdated falsified hypotheses where as a miracle expert makes claims that can't be falsified. Other than that, they are the same to me, experts in fiction (in the case of Star Trek experts) or mistaken beliefs (flat earth experts).What reason do I have to believe miracles are not fiction or mistaken beliefs?

Many. One of them is that you can see, touch and listen to some people that has lived a miracle. You also have access to all the work that has been done around each miracle through books and people that have worked on the case. Given enough time and money, you will be able to find a miracle yourself. Your non belief in miracle do not undo them. People that were sick are still cured even if you don't believe in miracle. Even if every one on earth did not "believe" in miracle, the person would still have been cured by God, there would still be a miracle.

Another "Because I say so" fallacy. This is a funny (and yet very hypocritical) method for arguing, since you yourself would not accept such claims if someone else tried it. As you have stated before, you would say something to the effect of, "Care to back that up with evidence? If you can't then retract it."

Your hypocrisy has no limits it seems. You are using a double standard and it shows.

The fact that someone was sick and got better does not prove a "miracle from God" occurred. You keep wanting us to make the same ASSUMPTION that you are making - but we won't because it is irrational and not scientific in any way. You can site all of the "work" you want to. Their irrational arguments are just as bad as yours. An argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy is just as fallacious whether you or they try it. Sorry!

EDIT: Hey look! According to Lukvance, a "miracle" is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy. LOL.

Quote

"event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency"

You merely CLAIMING they are experts doesn't mean anything. I could say that I'm an "expert" in anything

Where am I claiming such things? I explained to you that experts are deemed such by their peers. My field is not miracle, It is computers.When I point you towards miracle expert because I don't have enough knowledge to answer your burning question. I am not making a statement. I am just helping you find solutions to your troubles.

You have missed the point entirely. Just because a group of people get together and CLAIM to be "experts" (on a subject they have not demonstrated is actually real) does not mean that they are truly "experts" on what they claim. See, true experts can independently verify that said experts actually have expertise in a given field. As I mentioned before, a group of self-proclaimed "experts" can get together and make CLAIMS (just as you are doing) about anything. So what! It means nothing until their claims can be independently verified. You could have a group of astrologers, or palm readers (who claim to be "experts"), get together and claim that their conclusions are "true and accurate to reality". But believing them just because they say so would be a fools errand (especially when it comes to extraordinary claims of the supernatural).

You haven't verified these people are actually experts in a field that is real. You are just taking their word for it because you already want to believe it. But that method is unreliable for separating fact from fiction. Oh and btw, you aren't "helping" me with anything, and I don't have "troubles" in this area - so cut the shit. The troubles are yours because you keep making irrational arguments and unsupported assertions.

Did you ask yourself that question? Do you understand how miracle are found? Are you sure you have the correct information? Was your source reliable?

I understand how miracles are CLAIMED to be found and that is exactly the problem. It is an argument from ignorance fallacy (and one of my sources was Jacalyn Duffin; the one you gave!). If you disagree then actually present the evidence and rational argument.

That is answering one of my questions. What about the others? "Are you sure you have the correct information? Was your source reliable?"

That would depend on what you mean by "sure" and/or "reliable". But it is all red herring fallacy! You are the one making the claims that these occurrences are "miracles". So the burden of proof is on you - not me. So stop trying to turn the tables b/c that is called the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. This OP is about YOU demonstrating that the alleged "God" thing exists as a separate entity, outside varying human imaginations. And this continual stone-walling of yours isn't getting you even one step closer to showing that. You have stated that these occurrences at Lourdes are "miracles from God" (specifically the Catholic God according to you) and we have asked you how you know that. Thus far, you have given nothing except your gullibility as a response (that you personally believe these Catholics are "experts" at determining what is a miracle and what is not). Yet you have provided no basis for such conclusions except one big argument from ignorance. Got anything better?

You are making claims and we are asking to you actually back them up with the evidence/rational argument that is used by your alleged expert. Why not stop your stone-walling and actually present the arguments.

I don't understand. You realize that I am not a miracle expert, right? And neither are you, right? They have answers to your questions that I don't have. That's why I directed you towards them. What claim do you want to back that has not already be backed?

This is really a cowardice move. If you do not have "the answers" for which you have claimed that these alleged experts have, then how can you merely assert that they have the answers?? Have you consulted them? If you haven't asked, and you don't have the responses, then you can't know if they have the answers. So this response amounts to lying b/c you don't know what they have or don't have. Once again, you are merely assuming they have the answers (because it is convenient for you to do so). And this is all because you have merely assumed that these men/women are indeed experts in a field that is actually real. I could state that I am an "expert" in "Santa Clausism". But such an assertion wouldn't make Santa Claus real, regardless of how many people I got to agree. So then placing the title of "expert" would be meaningless.

Let's play a game. You tell me the claim you understand I made, you tell me what I should have given to back it up, you compare it with whatever backing I actually did. Then tell us if there is something missing. Well you don't even have to tell us it should be obvious what backing is missing from the one you where looking forward to.

Is that all this about for you, one big game? You made the claim that these Catholics are "experts" at determining whether or not an alleged event was a "miracle" from your alleged God. Yet, as I have noted before, that is a completely circular argument. You need the alleged "God" to exist first before you can say anything was a miracle (and that's just the start of it). Neither you, nor they, have demonstrated that "God" is real or actual (aka - separate from human brains!). So merely claiming that these men/women are experts is meaningless. You would first need to demonstrate that the alleged god is real (which is the whole point of this OP!) and then go about determining that the alleged deity actually did a miracle in a given instance at Lourdes.

Second, just because a group of people get together and deem themselves "experts", doesn't mean they are (especially since you haven't demonstrated that this subject is based on anything other than imaginary fiction - unlike science which can be independently verified in study). Your attempt to answer one mystery by appealing to yet another mystery is an epic fail because such an attempt doesn't explain anything. It just kicks the can down the road by deferring to men/women who merely make more unsubstantiated claims (i.e. "God did it").

Second, if you are willing to admit ignorance on these alleged miracles then that would make you an agnostic about them (meaning that you don't know what the cause was). Is that what you are admitting now?

Ignorance and not being an expert are 2 different things. I am not ignorant when it comes to matters of religion/miracles.

Apparently you are because just a minute ago you said you were willing to admit ignorance on this subject (the subject of alleged "miracles" at Lourdes). And now it seems you are arrogantly proclaiming knowledge regarding "religion/miracles". This is pretty funny though, because you also just said earlier that you are deferring to "experts" and that you don't have the answers for actually determining when a miracle has, or has not, occurred. So much for not being ignorant! Which is it Luk, are you ignorant of how miracles are determined or not? If not, please present the reasoning in detail.

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

The reasoning is experts pretending to use the scientific method so that they'll sound more credible to people with no science background, even though their methods are not scientific and their conclusions are complete bollocks said so.

I can see, touch and listen to people who have watched Star Trek, does that mean Star Trek is real?

No. In my example I am not talking about someone who saw a miracle on TV. Why do you compare it with people who saw something on TV?

I know you are talking about someone who claims to have experienced or “lived” a miracle. I may have failed to fully explain my thought process. I’m glad you have responded the way you have, I was wondering if you would.

Miracles can also be read about, correct? They are written about in the Bible or other books, I think one of your sources also lists the 67 miracles at Lourdes. You are correct there is a difference between reading about miracles and experiencing a miracle just like there is in watching Star Trek and experiencing a miracle. But what difference would there be from experiencing Star Trek and experiencing a miracle?

From my perspective, all I see are people claiming they’ve experienced a miracle and other people claiming that those people did experience a miracle. This is not enough for me. If it were enough for me to believe that a miracle happened then I would also have to believe that Star Trek was real in the event that people start claiming they were beamed up to the Enterprise and Star Trek experts claiming that those people did beam up to the Enterprise.

That is the problem with relying on testimony and using the appeal to authority logical fallacy. If all it takes is testimony and claimed authority to believe something, then belief in falsehoods is increasingly likely.

If you could touch, see, and listen to a Vulcan or at least people who have been into the Enterprise or Klingon space, that would be different. Wouldn't it?

If I could touch, see and listen to a Vulcan, then I would be experiencing Star Trek, which would be like experiencing a miracle. But how would I know I’m actually experiencing Star Trek, I should attempt to prove that I am actually interacting with a Vulcan. Does being healed without any known natural explanation after I had been diagnosed with a 0% chance of being cured mean that I actually interacted with a Vulcan? No it does not. I need to test the Vulcan, not use a “Vulcan of the Gaps” argument which means I can’t just assume I’m interacting with a Vulcan just because I don’t know how I was cured.

You also have access to all the work that has been done around each miracle through books and people that have worked on the case.

From what you said, you are talking about review of medical opinions and research .

When you say event, do you mean the event of someone being healed without any known explanation? And by repetitive, do you mean such events as someone being healed without any known explanation has occurred multiple times?

If your answer is yes to those last two questions, then I agree. We both agree that a number of people have healed without any known natural explanation AND we can both agree that the Earth exists.

That is as far as we walk down the path of agreement together though. On the path of someone being healed without any known natural explanation, YOU then take a route which uses illogical methods to claim that “God” interacted and healed the person which is called a miracle (I stop and do not follow you as I do not see any evidence to support such a claim, all I see are assertions from claimed “experts”, there is no scientific data or research anymore). The question then becomes if I take that route and follow you, why also shouldn’t I take the route regarding the shape of the Earth which uses illogical methods to claim that the Earth is flat (which also has no evidence to support such a claim and only has assertions from claimed “experts”).

I’m sorry, this must seem very insulting because to you, miracles and the methods used are legitimate. I’m not trying to insult you, I’m only trying to explain to you that to me, the methods used to verify miracles are not legitimate.

I hope you can understand that if someone was trying to convince you of believing something using illegitimate methods or illogical methods, you would question them and tell them you have no reason to believe what they say. Sure you might be nice and listen to what they have to say, but if all they do is repeat the same incorrect methods over and over which you identify as illogical, why would you believe them? If you believe them, then why not believe everyone about anything?

Why should I believe a logical fallacy? Logical fallacies lead to errors and mistakes which can lead to believing falsehoods are true.

You keep repeating that it is a logical fallacy without telling us what would make it not a fallacy.

I wasn’t sure if you were actually reading my posts and comprehending what I was informing you.

Maybe this will help the discussion, and explain the problem.

Currently, from what I can see:

Medical Scientists verify that someone was healed without an known natural explanation which means that “God” healed the person (AKA a miracle occurred).

SO, what that means is, we don’t know the cause of something = “God” is the cause. OR to put it another way: Cause of “A” is unknown = “X” is the cause. In science, “X” is considered a hypothesis until it can be verified or falsified. If it is verified, then it is tested again, and again, different tests are run, data is recorded and verified and eventually it graduates to a theory which is the best explaination for the cause of “A”. If “X” hypothesis is falsified then it has to be reviewed/modified or rejected and a new hypothesis has to be developed.

What makes a “God of the gaps” argument a logical fallacy is that no verification has taken place, “God” is assumed if the cause is unknown.

Some examples of this logic failing include discovering the cause of lightning. Before we knew the cause of lightning, ancient Greeks thought the god Zeus caused lightning. Ancient Greeks didn’t know the cause so therefore a god was the cause. Ancient Greeks didn’t bother looking for evidence of the existence of Zeus.

Another example would be the nature of the Earth revolving around the Sun. Before we knew the nature of our solar system, ancient Egyptians thought the god Amun-Ra caused the Sun to rise and fall from the sky. Ancient Egyptians didn’t know the cause of planetary motion so therefore a god was the cause. Ancient Egyptians didn’t bother looking for evidence of the existence of Amun-Ra.

The same is being done regarding Catholic Church miracles. How someone was healed is unknown so therefore a god was the cause. The Catholic Church and you Lukvance are not bothering to look for evidence of the existence of “God”.

If you want to stop using the logical fallacy, then you must use the scientific method to detect “God” and then determine if “God” was involved NOT determine that no cause is known and then declare “God” was involved.

I mean, if God were to exist and to act upon this world, how differently would you proceed to detect his actions?Let me answer for you, you will do exactly what is being done right now.

No, I wouldn’t do things how the Catholic Church is doing it. As I’ve already said, reviewing your sources and the sources I linked to reveals that the Catholic Church is using the “God of the gaps” logical fallacy. They are not determining if “God” was actually involved, only that no known cause can be provided, and then assuming “God” was the cause.

Right now, from what I can see, “God” is a hypothesis to explain the cause. We need to detect “God” first, find verifiable evidence of “God”, make predictions about “God’s” nature and behavior which can be verified or falsified and then determine if “God” was the cause of the healings.

Well, looking for reasons that is not “God” might save time that might be wasted in trying to prove that it is “God” but that wouldn’t do anything to actually prove that it is “God”. Also, without actually being able to detect “God” and with no evidence of “God” or verified predictions regarding the nature / behavior of “God”, how do we know that “the reasons that it is not God” are actually reasons? Without an ability to detect “God” how do we know “God” doesn’t heal people through natural means which are known?

Once all options has been eliminated, look for reasons why it is God, then conclude.

Look for reason why it is “God”. Okay, THAT is where I’d like to see some information. What are the reasons why it is “God”? Where is that data showing that?

Currently, all I see is medical scientists saying “we don’t know the cause” and then the Catholic Church saying “Oh really, I guess God did it then”.

Where is the evidence that “God” is responsible?

EDIT: Okay well, I've been reading a number of posts in this thread, my appologies for not doing so already, but it seems I'm just repeating a lot of the same problems that others have already raised regarding Lukvance's claims.

If someone mysteriously getting well is a miracle from god, then someone mysteriously getting sick must also be a miracle from god.

One baby in 12 million gets a rare disease from a routine vaccine, one of 10,000 hikers gets crushed to death by a falling branch, one in 100,000 old ladies living alone in a country is assaulted, killed and cut into pieces by a maniac.

Why does it only count as a miracle if it is something people like?

A plane has a the tiny engine problem that randomly causes it to nearly crash, but instead the pilot uses all his skill and lands the plane safely. A very rare and unlikely miracle! Why isn't the tiny engine problem that randomly caused a plane to crash, killing all the passengers on board also considered a miracle?